On June 3, San Francisco voters decide on two ballot measures concerning development in the southeastern portion of the city, and one on reforming the membership of the Public Utilities Commission. The Sierra Club urges a no vote on Prop G and yes votes on Props E and F.
Environmental groups support economic development and open-space improvements at Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point- but Proposition G is the wrong way to do this. It is a political manipulation of the planning process.
Ordinarily we would begin this article with a summary of Prop G - but Prop G is so vague and confusing that we can not safely do so. It is clearly intended to facilitate building a new stadium at Hunters Point for the 49ers, but it also would apply if the 49ers decide to go elsewhere.
The text is replete with "should" and "encourage". It seems to ask voters to approve a project, but leaves us in the dark as to what "the project" truly is. At meetings around the city, developer Lennar Corp. has been touting a plan that environmentalists find deeply problematic, but Lennar claims merely to be seeking voter approval of certain policies, collectively identified in Prop G as "the project" (see section 4 of the actual text).
In reference to the stadium alternative, the measure states that "The integrated development... should provide parking, transportation, transit and other infrastructure necessary for the operation of the stadium, including automobile, public transit and pedestrian connections between the Shipyard Property and Candlestick Point in order to facilitate the efficient handling of game day traffic." What does this mean in reality? Lennar has publicly been promoting a proposal that includes an environmentally destructive bridge crossing over Yosemite Slough and running through Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. Lennar's proposal also includes a new expressway running through the state recreation area to connect with a new freeway interchange south of Bayview Hill. This would be convenient for game-day drivers and commuters who work in the South Bay, but runs the wrong direction to be of much use to most residents of Bayview and Hunters Point, who urgently need better connections with downtown and the rest of San Francisco, not with the Peninsula. And what exactly does "other infrastructure" mean? Who decides what is "necessary" to secure the construction of a "state of the art" football stadium?
What Prop G would do is enable the "Master Developer" (i.e. Lennar) to build housing and other infrastructure on lands now owned by the city's Recreation and Parks Department. In section 6, city voters would approve the transfer of existing park lands "free from any restriction that the land be used for any park or recreational purposes." In return, it offers mere encouragement for the built-out development to include approximately 300 acres of open space. If existing state-park land and areas of the Shipyard currently designated as open space are backed out of the total, however, new open space acreage would be approximately half of the claimed amount. Also, if Lennar follows its current plans, more than a quarter of this new "parkland" would be stadium parking spaces, covered with synthetic-fiber-enhanced turf and converted to play-field use on non-event days. What kind of park is that?
In the event that the 49ers do not build a stadium, the initiative discourages creative approaches to enhancing recreation and habitat opportunities on the Shipyard site. City planning staff insist that if the measure is approved, the plan will go ahead with or without the 49ers. But what would the non-stadium alternative look like? Section 4 of Prop G says that if a stadium is not built, the land (100 acres of public land) should be used for "green biotech" and other offices.
Economic development in this area should be targeted at creating jobs for residents of Bayview, with its high level of unemployment. Biotech is more likely to attract outsiders than to generate jobs for local people.
Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of Prop G is its lack of clarity. If it passes, it can be used to justify almost anything. We fear that the city and Lennar will interpret it to approve of whatever they want, and that they will consider the community benefits as a non-binding "wish list".
With or without a stadium, approval of Prop G would make it more difficult to create a truly great park along the southeastern shoreline. Bayview/Hunters Point and San Francisco deserve a plan with predictable community benefits. Unfortunately, Prop G is a dissembling political hack job that seems to promise something to everyone without committing anything to anyone.
Vote no on G.
Prop F requires that half of the new housing at Candlestick Point and the Hunters Point Shipyard be affordable to middle- and low-income households. Since the entire project is to be built on public land, this is a reasonable requirement in exchange.
Affordable housing in cities reduces suburban sprawl, thus saving farms and open space from development. Without affordable housing in cities, workers are forced into longer commutes, increasing congestion, and pollution.
Including affordable housing in new developments is smart growth. Affordable housing fights global warming by reducing sprawl, helps protect open space, and provides desperately needed housing that middle- and low-income San Franciscans can afford.
Vote yes on Prop F.
Proposition E is a simple, two-page measure to change two aspects of appointments to the Public Utilities Commission.
The PUC is San Francisco's largest department, providing water to 2.5 million customers. This modest reform will help to give us able commissioners and to prevent purely political appointments.
